Repeal the Casino Deal will fight AG's ruling on ballot question

Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley has rejected an initiative petition to repeal the 2011 law that legalized casino gambling, saying that the petition would result in an unconstitutional taking of property.

But proponents say they plan to fight the ruling and still collect signatures for the ballot question.

In a decision written Sept. 4, state Solicitor Peter Sacks argues that the proposed law could not be certified because it would prohibit the state Gaming Commission from issuing licenses for casinos or a slots parlor under the expanded gaming law. It would therefore impair the implied contract between the commission and gaming license applicants, who have spent millions of dollars so far for the review process.

"Contract rights are considered property and may not be 'taken' by an initiative petition," Mr. Sacks wrote. "Here, the proposed law would impair and thus 'take' applicants' contract rights, without any provision for paying compensation."

While no casino license applicant has any right to the issuance of a license, he continued, under the 2011 law the applicants have an implied contractual right to Gaming Commission action on their applications.

Mr. Sacks also noted that parimutuel betting on greyhound racing, which is allowed under a state license through such simulcast facilities as Raynham Park, would become "illegal gaming" under the proposed law.

Brian Ashmankas, a Millbury selectman who serves as campaign director for the organization behind the initiative, Repeal the Casino Deal, said his group plans to file an injunction with the Supreme Judicial Court and will proceed with collecting signatures when papers are released around Sept. 15. "We think we're right," he said. "This reading is faulty and we're going to win."

He said a decision by the court would be expected in spring, in time to get the initiative on the 2014 ballot.

Mr. Ashmankas said the attorney general's reasoning, that the law's application process constituted a contract and property, was "a big stretch."

"There's nothing they own, physical or otherwise, that is deemed affected by this."

He was also stunned by the decision, because Repeal the Casino Deal representatives worked with an assistant attorney general for two months prior to submitting the initiative petition for certification.

Pointing to a SJC ruling that rejected Raynham Park's challenge to a 2008 initiative that outlawed greyhound racing, he said a gambling license is a revokable privilege.

"To me, it just motivates me," Mr. Ashamankas said about the impact of the attorney general's decision on the Repeal the Casino Deal campaign. "It isn't about the freedom to gamble; it's about government sponsoring a predatory organization against their mandate to serve the people."